Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Week)   Eating termites, grasshoppers and worms is a good way to lose weight, the rest of your lunch   (theweek.com) divider line 30
    More: Obvious, Dietary Reference Intake, brain size, human ancestor, Paleolithic, hunter-gatherer diets  
•       •       •

1141 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Mar 2014 at 3:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



30 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-03 03:43:26 AM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-03-03 03:52:22 AM  
janetility.com
 
2014-03-03 03:55:15 AM  
That was actually a great article. I have a few friends that are vainly trying to stick to the so-called Paleo diet, and I'd love to see their denial on reading this.
 
2014-03-03 04:22:05 AM  
Well if I had to eat termites, grasshoppers and worms, I'd certainly lose my appetite and not eat much, so yeah I guess that would make me lose weight.

But if eating eat termites, grasshoppers and worms was the only way to lose weight, I think I'd also rather be fat.
 
2014-03-03 05:05:06 AM  
We turn those bugs into chicken eggs.
 
2014-03-03 05:41:00 AM  
The Paleo Diet, and this article, is nonsense
 
2014-03-03 05:44:43 AM  
Given that insect protein is considerably cheaper to produce than animal protein, there is a good chance that processed insect foods will begin to appear on the market within ten to twenty years.

Honestly, if you were given two "chicken nuggets" and told one was made of insect protein while the other was made of chicken protein, and you couldn't tell the difference, would it still really bother you to know you would be eating bugs if you ate both?  Or would the ability to buy twice as many for the same price win you over?

/the insect protein is also healthier for you, though I'm sure it will be drowning in sugar, fat, and salt once it is processed
 
2014-03-03 06:01:39 AM  
Great Justice: ....
/the insect protein is also healthier for you, though I'm sure it will be drowning in sugar, fat, and salt once it is processed

Says who? I mean, seriously, that's a fairly broad statement with a pretty strong whiff of woo-woo.
 
2014-03-03 06:34:03 AM  

ghare: Great Justice: ....
/the insect protein is also healthier for you, though I'm sure it will be drowning in sugar, fat, and salt once it is processed

Says who? I mean, seriously, that's a fairly broad statement with a pretty strong whiff of woo-woo.


In general it's better to eat the ants before they come to eat you.
 
2014-03-03 07:15:17 AM  

ghare: The Paleo Diet, and this article, is nonsense


ghare:  Says who? I mean, seriously, that's a fairly broad statement with a pretty strong whiff of woo-woo.

/I was going to ask for citation, but its good to see you self-corrected
 
2014-03-03 08:06:32 AM  

Great Justice: Given that insect protein is considerably cheaper to produce than animal protein, there is a good chance that processed insect foods will begin to appear on the market within ten to twenty years.

Honestly, if you were given two "chicken nuggets" and told one was made of insect protein while the other was made of chicken protein, and you couldn't tell the difference, would it still really bother you to know you would be eating bugs if you ate both?  Or would the ability to buy twice as many for the same price win you over?

/the insect protein is also healthier for you, though I'm sure it will be drowning in sugar, fat, and salt once it is processed


mmmm.....chicken/insect nuggets with salt and sugar...

blog.oregonlive.com
does it come with dipping sauces?
 
2014-03-03 08:36:04 AM  

ghare: Great Justice: ....
/the insect protein is also healthier for you, though I'm sure it will be drowning in sugar, fat, and salt once it is processed

Says who? I mean, seriously, that's a fairly broad statement with a pretty strong whiff of woo-woo.


Well there are whole books written to counter the paleo diet bullshiat. Paleo Fantasy by Marlene Zuk is of them.
 
2014-03-03 08:37:54 AM  

ghare: Says who? I mean, seriously, that's a fairly broad statement with a pretty strong whiff of woo-woo.


It is nonsense because it's based on pseudoscience and broken logic, to wit: our paleolithic ancestors didn't eat wheat and look how healthy they were!

Yes and that may have had something to do with the fact they weren't a bunch of sedentary fat asses shoving calorie rich food stuffs down their distended pieholes. Their calorific intake, the amount they got from foraging / hunting / fishing etc. was balanced out by the exertions of their lifestyle.

The paleo diet may "work" but only the way any other diet or indeed the standard food pyramid works - cut out or moderate the high calorie items and you should lose weight. All that other BS about ancestors or the gluten in wheat is just brain addled new age garble.

The only people who benefit from avoiding wheat are those who are genuinely intolerant to it, e.g. coeliacs.
 
2014-03-03 08:56:55 AM  
WTF is with the media's insistent urge to try to make everyone eat bugs?? Were they all forced to eat icky things by bullies as a kid and this is their way to try to get everyone eating bugs so that they no longer will feel the shame?

When everyone's eating icky things, no one will be.

www.thewhatblog.com
 
2014-03-03 08:57:37 AM  
img1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-03-03 09:10:00 AM  
I had termites on a trip to belize and they were pretty good. Granted they were more the size of aphids and tasted like a minty tic tac so it wasn't gross.
At that size it would take hundreds to make any sizable amount of calories. Must be a different type of termite.

And were those hunter gatherers really six foot five? I thought humans were growing in size.
 
2014-03-03 09:32:48 AM  

ghare: The Paleo Diet, and this article, is nonsense


you sound fat, and/or a vegan
 
2014-03-03 09:48:34 AM  

lelio: I thought humans were growing in size.


Common misconception.
 
2014-03-03 10:02:49 AM  

drxym: ghare: Says who? I mean, seriously, that's a fairly broad statement with a pretty strong whiff of woo-woo.

It is nonsense because it's based on pseudoscience and broken logic, to wit: our paleolithic ancestors didn't eat wheat and look how healthy they were!

Yes and that may have had something to do with the fact they weren't a bunch of sedentary fat asses shoving calorie rich food stuffs down their distended pieholes. Their calorific intake, the amount they got from foraging / hunting / fishing etc. was balanced out by the exertions of their lifestyle.

The paleo diet may "work" but only the way any other diet or indeed the standard food pyramid works - cut out or moderate the high calorie items and you should lose weight. All that other BS about ancestors or the gluten in wheat is just brain addled new age garble.

The only people who benefit from avoiding wheat are those who are genuinely intolerant to it, e.g. coeliacs.


Animals are lazy.  The theory suggests Paleo era humans had plenty of rest and downtime, they weren't training for the ironman.  On a proper diet, it is not necessary to eat 3 big old meals a day.  If you are getting enough fat and protein in your diet, then you can go all day or longer without eating - humans are not grazing animals after all.  You can't do that eating grains, and there's more negatives than just gluten.  Their nutrition profile is not that good, they contain lot's of anti-nutrients, and are not edible to humans in their raw form.

The USDA food pyramid suggested basing your diet on grains.. how's that been working out?
 
2014-03-03 10:05:30 AM  

NakedDrummer: Animals are lazy.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
2014-03-03 10:08:35 AM  
In other news, proteins without fats or carbs are easily regulated by your body thereby avoiding extra calorie intake leading to normal weight.
In other news, fats  without proteins or carbs are easily regulated by your body thereby avoiding extra calorie intake leading to normal weight.
In other news, carbs without proteins or fats are easily regulated by your body thereby avoiding extra calorie intake leading to normal weight.

just try eating too much if you don`t eat mixed macro nutrients...
 
2014-03-03 10:09:30 AM  
Oh, unless you are ill or mutated of course.
 
2014-03-03 10:29:05 AM  

Russ1642: Well there are whole books written to counter the paleo diet bullshiat. Paleo Fantasy by Marlene Zuk is of them.


http://www.marksdailyapple.com/is-it-all-just-a-paleofantasy/#axzz2u uh TxXc6

Got anything better to debunk Paleo diet?  Most are from vegans, and veganism is not a diet or nutritional plan (it's absolutely the unhealthiest possible diet), it's an activist movement.
 
2014-03-03 11:01:06 AM  

ghare: Great Justice: ....
/the insect protein is also healthier for you, though I'm sure it will be drowning in sugar, fat, and salt once it is processed

Says who? I mean, seriously, that's a fairly broad statement with a pretty strong whiff of woo-woo.


Well, I'm going with the information presented by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, who published a report on the subject.

I'll admit that is a fairly broad statement, and I'm sure you can find some insects that are less healthy than others; by healthy I am referring specifically to the ratio of fats present in insects, which is generally closer to fish than to beef or pork.  The fat ratio also depends on what the insects are fed while being raised.  Some beef is grass fed and some pigs are fed with avocados, which also gives them better fat ratios than other beef and pork products, though this is not true of the majority of those consumed.
 
2014-03-03 11:18:19 AM  

NakedDrummer: Animals are lazy. The theory suggests Paleo era humans had plenty of rest and downtime, they weren't training for the ironman.


The theory? What theory? Animals don't just hunt themselves. Food doesn't just pick itself. It has to be found, caught, prepared and cooked. Implements for doing the catching, preparing and cooking have to be made. This requires effort, probably greatly in excess of what an average person does these days.

On a proper diet, it is not necessary to eat 3 big old meals a day. If you are getting enough fat and protein in your diet, then you can go all day or longer without eating - humans are not grazing animals after all. You can't do that eating grains, and there's more negatives than just gluten. Their nutrition profile is not that good, they contain lot's of anti-nutrients, and are not edible to humans in their raw form.

You're just spouting horseshiat now. Anti-nutrients? Not edible in their raw form? I suggest you follow a paleo diet without cooking any of the ingredients and report back how that goes. Not that I recommend you try because that would be a monumentally dumb idea.

The USDA food pyramid suggested basing your diet on grains.. how's that been working out?

Just fine assuming people bother to follow it.
 
2014-03-03 11:40:54 AM  
I think this should qualify for this diet:

imgs.sfgate.com
 
2014-03-03 12:08:06 PM  
drxym:

The theory? What theory? Animals don't just hunt themselves. Food doesn't just pick itself. It has to be found, caught, prepared and cooked. Implements for doing the catching, preparing and cooking have to be made. This requires effort, probably greatly in excess of what an average person does these days.

The point is carnivores and omnivores spend most of their time sleeping or lounging about.  Sure the average person works out less than a typical hunter-gatherer, but the history of farm workers, any athlete, workout enthusiast, or gym rat works out a lot harder than paleo era human or typical animal.

You're just spouting horseshiat now. Anti-nutrients? Not edible in their raw form? I suggest you follow a paleo diet without cooking any of the ingredients and report back how that goes. Not that I recommend you try because that would be a monumentally dumb idea.

lectins, gluten, phytates among other things.  Never had steak tartare?  sushi?  most meats it's preferable to cook to help disgestion, but can absolutely be handled by human digestion raw.  The problems arise with bad meat sources, CAFO, antibiotics, hormones, etc.  Grains and legumes for the most part have to be processed and some are outright toxic without being processed/cooked.

The USDA food pyramid suggested basing your diet on grains.. how's that been working out?

Just fine assuming people bother to follow it.


You should read up.. maybe start with Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes.
 
2014-03-03 01:21:19 PM  
So long as by "lose weight" you really mean "gain wright", then yes. Bugs: high calorie, high fat, lots of vitamins and minerals.

Fta: 'And it's no wonder, according to paleontologist Lucinda Backwell, who co-authored the study, since termites have a higher nutritional content than rump steak.

"Termites are a valuable source of protein, fat, and essential amino acids, in the diets of both primates and modern humans," wrote Backwell. "While rump steak yields 322 calories per 100 grams, and cod fish 74, termites provide 560 calories per 100 grams."'
 
2014-03-03 10:52:58 PM  

NakedDrummer: Grains and legumes for the most part have to be processed and some are outright toxic without being processed/cooked.



Dried beans are toxic raw, however, green and shelly beans are fine to eat raw, so are fresh grains. I do not believe the silly idea that paleos never ate grains. Of course they would have seen animals eat grass seed, and would have pulled some off grasses and tasted them, and would have continued to eat them when they were hungry and the seed was there. Just because they might not have ground up dry seed into flour and baked bread, does not mean they didnt chew fresh, soft, raw grains. Raw oats are soft and sweet, why not eat them. Dried grains wont kill you if you eat them raw, either. When they were going hungry in winter, they probably did chew on the dried grass or grains or leaves of their bedding.

Do you think they knew what "lectins, gluten, phytates " mean? I don't even know WTF you mean with those three words, and how it, somehow, translates into cavemen never eating a grass seed. Maybe you think that they only ate the very best, healthful foods, all the time, etc. Bull. They probably had short lifespans, due to injury, infection, childbirth, or murder, they were almost certainly riddled with intestinal parasites, for which they may have eaten wads of grass and roughage to try to scrape the worms out of their guts, and they probably ate things all the time that may have been slightly toxic, or made them sick for a while. The wrong berry, the wrong root, till they figured it out and passed on the knowledge to the children, don't eat that berry or root. They were dumb guys just walking around tasting stuff and hoping not to die from it, ffs. They were not educated food scientists. They probably ate dirt or even feces, from time to time. They would have seen other animals do it.
 
2014-03-04 07:50:00 AM  

NakedDrummer: lectins, gluten, phytates among other things. Never had steak tartare? sushi? most meats it's preferable to cook to help disgestion, but can absolutely be handled by human digestion raw. The problems arise with bad meat sources, CAFO, antibiotics, hormones, etc. Grains and legumes for the most part have to be processed and some are outright toxic without being processed/cooked.


Ludicrous. Some people are allergic to molluscs, eggs, crustaceans, ground nuts, tree nuts, mustard and celery which are all permitted by "paleo". So I don't see what your point is. Yeah some people (including my kids) must avoid gluten. It doesn't mean others need to.

Second, many food items in the so-called "paleo" diet should be cooked or you risk serious harm to yourself either from toxins left in the food, or from bacteria that live on the surface. Even if we were to assume that paleolithic people ate their meat raw on occasion where it was safe to do so, the evidence shows they cooked it too.

Third, many modern food items have had the toxicity bred out of them through selective breeding. So the need to cook or boil food in the genuine paleo diet was even more pressing than it is today. Wild varieties of plants would have been far more bitter, toxic, fibrous or unpalatable than modern day counterparts. Some foods in the "paleo" diet are actually poisonous in their wild form, e.g. almonds.

Fourth, there is tool evidence that people were grinding seeds before turning to agriculture. Why would that be I wonder? Could it be because the "paleo" diet is just so much pseudo science? It only works the way that other diets do. By reducing calorific intake it causes weight loss in people who consume less than they expend. All the rest is wargarble.

You should read up.. maybe start with Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes.

I don't see why. It has no more than a tangential bearing on this discussion since it discusses obesity and diabetes in people who are clearly not eating correctly in the first place. Even if the book were to make a good case for cutting carbs or certain kinds of refined starches in a general sense, it in no way validates the pseudo science of "paleo".
 
Displayed 30 of 30 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report